Re: CS>Re : CS>best pppm of CS to make and use

[Ode Coyote]

At 01:18 AM 11/9/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>CS>Re : CS>best pppm of CS to make and use
>From: sol
>Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:38:18
>http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m74858.html
>
> Hi sol,
>
> Thanks for replying and explaining your procedure. Unfortunately, I
> was expecting a slightly different answer. I thought you were
> turning the cs generator off for several minutes to let the ions
> reach a uniform distribution, then turning it on again to add a
> small amount of new silver to the solution before the Nernst
> diffusion layer had a chance to build up again.
## When using constant stirring the overall diffusion stays pretty much uniform and the diffusion layer is constantly disrupted.
The problem is that PPM and conductivity don't relate at one to one till after the CS has stabilized and the auto off, operating on conductivity 'now', can't predict that.
One way to get around that is to let the gen shut down, let the CS sit till it stabilizes, then turn the gen back on till it shuts down again. Each time you do that, the shut down conductivity gets closer to the conductivity/PPM equivalency until the generator shuts itself down very fast. Time and volume of water takes care of itself.
That's really easy but slow as it takes a day or so of the very little effort required to reset the generator a couple of times. ie, no effort to speak of but lots of waiting.
Using a timer could be a way to go if a 'walk by' now and then is too much. A standard programmable light timer would do fine to do the cycles automatically.

Another way is to predict how far past shut down conductivity you need to go so conductivity and the desired PPM match up 'after' it stabilizes.
Since running at a controlled current makes ion production very close to linear with time and shut down conductivity references a timing start point, it's not very hard to make a time prediction for an end point to reach a desired PPM. Volume of water becomes a timing factor.
>
> This would work, but it would be very tedious to do it manually. A
> better idea would be to add a simple electronic timer to turn the
> current on and off.
>
> > I just use my silverpuppy generator with the auto-shut off switch
> > in bypass position. It seems to me there is some correlation
> > between the uS reading and the ppm. Even if it isn't 100%
> > accurate, it is close enough for my purposes.
>
> Yes, there is a correlation between uS and ppm. I have posted it
> numerous times. Ivan Anderson measured the ppm using an Ion
> Selective Electrode and the conductance using a conductivity probe,
> and found 1uS = 1.08ppm:
## This varies with particulate content which is a portion of the total silver content not picked up by either instrument. Generally, the higher the PPM, the higher the particle to ion ratio. "If" all those particles really are silver oxides and inert, then it doesn't matter to the 'ion only' effective PPM.
I would think that ionic PPM will never be lower than conductivity as long as all that conductivity is a result of only silver ions and not something else. [Are unstable hydroxls conductive?]
>
> http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m14498.html
>
> I combined his data with Frank Key's, and found it averaged to
> 1.0074, which is close enough to 1 uS = 1 ppm for our needs:
## Yup. Close is good enough for a grenade.
>
> http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m63151.html
>
> Finally, Ken posted the results of an experiment with baking soda.
> He ran 1 milliamp for 2 hrs and 41 minutes, and found the cs
> increased by 22.8 uS. I ran the Faraday calculations and found the
> expected increase was 22.83 ppm, almost exactly what he measured:
>
> http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m71961.html
>
> This confirms the relationship between uS and ppm is 1 uS = 1 ppm.
>
> However, any contamination or problems with the dw would cause an
> error, as it would in any measurement involving conductance. But we
> need to ensure these issues are solved anyway.
>
> > For topical use I don't care if the EIS is yellow. I have been
> > able to get it up to about 60 ppm (I believe Ken has said he has
> > gone higher). The PWT uS reading drops rather dramatically and
> > quickly once the gen is turned off.
>
> You are measuring conductance with current applied? I don't think
> you can do that. You need to shut off the current and let the ions
> diffuse to an even concentration. This may take 1 hr or more, maybe
> less if you stirred it. But any measurement with current applied is
> meaningless.
>
> What is the uS reading a day or so after the current is turned off?
>
> > Probably because particles are forming as the EIS stabilizes?
>
> Partly, but mainly because the ion distribution is not uniform
> throughout the solution.
## Would unstable hydroxls stirred in play a role? Apparently so...not that I understand why.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:E4yKmWQzcB8J:kurzweil.mit.edu/archives/VOL_031/TECH_V031_S0504_P001.pdf+hydroxl+conductivity&hl=en [lots of typos]
Professor -Miller gave a table of the velocities of the various ions.
This table showed that the hydrogen ion is much faster than any other, the hydroxl coming next in the table with about half the speed. He showed by experiment that these velocities are one of the three factors which determine the electrical conductivity of a solution.
The second factor is the; number of ions per unit volume or the leicentage to which an electrolyte is ionized. The third factor, which follows from Faraday's Law is the number of electrical charges carried
by each ion.
Professor Goodwin announced that his next talk would be on the Electro-chemical Series.




## I've found that using thermal updraft in a tall container poops out near the top and conductivity builds up high up where the elctrodes are sampling conductivity as evidenced by immediately manually stirring a tall batch drops the overall conductivity some but Not enough to account for all the conductivity drop over time.
Enhancing the velocity of the updraft with a funnel as a chimney does very nicely but the very narrow tube in the funnels available may be a bit small and concentrate ions within it...sometimes...a little too much.
Top down mechnical stirring in a tall container has water velocity related effects that I like even less.
>
> > After it sits for weeks, it drops a bit more. The silver is in
> > there, though :-), my opinion, even if in a form that doesn't have
> > conductance.
>
> (Sigh) Yes, the silver is there. Unfortunately, it is also in a form
> that is useless to us. It is mostly oxides, which are inert and have
> no biological activity. This is explained in my analysis at
>
> http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m74754.html
>
> > Theoretically you could run the gen until you had black sludge, I
> > think. It just depends on how long you want to let a batch run.
>
> It really doesn't matter. As I mentioned before, as soon as oxide
> formation begins, the voltage across the cell stops changing. This
> means that any further ions added to the cs are converted to oxides.
## Either oxides or pure silver particles would have the same effect on cell voltage as neither are conductive when suspended in a solution and both use up silver ions.
I can see where a yellow particle could be an oxide as the action on them is the same as on the yellow coating on a container where they have been allowed to encrust and the black coating on an electrode when exposed to H2O2.
All silver oxides I know of display a color ranging from yellow-brown to black. What if there is no color yet many particles are apparent in a TE? How could they be an oxide?
Could there be some silver hydroxides [also probably nearly biologically inert..and white] in there and would H2O2 react in some way with that?
Suspended silver carboanate particles are white till sunlight greys them a little and looks exactly like the normal suspended supposedly silver particles in spades, be those particles pure silver or somehow colorless oxides of silver...similar to the result of adding H2O2 to crystal clear IES and getting that milky white explosion effect.
Most of the silver carbonate eventually settles out and the water becomes distinctly less milky as a grey or white deposit grows on the bottom while the 'explosion' result doesn't settle at all, so far as I can tell.

BTW I mixed a few drops of white distilled vineger in with a sample of the 'milky explosion/ H2O2' stuff and set it next to an untreated sample. After several days, the sample with the vinegar was absolutely clear with zero TE and a few whitish flakes on the bottom while the untreated sample changed not a bit. [but now has some black specks floating on top]
Not sure if the flakes and specks were from a reaction or if it's just crap that got in there. I didn't cover them up but since they were sitting right next to each other, I'd assume they'd both get the same crap in them. But they're different.

Another thing. I put H2O2 in a sample of several week old clear colorless CS and it showed no trace of a milky explosion at all. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. No change in TE. No change at all. while new-clear colorless samples have.
Hummmm
I don't think a single answer is going to cover the range of multiple and changing factors involved.
There's something going on here that makes my eyes meat.

Ode [ken]
>
> These are inert and have no biological activity. They won't kill
> bugs. It is a waste of time and good silver to generate them.
>
> > I can run a pint, and time it if you want some approximation of
> > time to uS?
>
> Yes, of course. Just use the Faraday equations.
>
> > sol
>
> Thanks, sol. I see we still have a lot of work to do:)
>
>Best Wishes,
>
>Mike Monett
>
>
>--
>The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
>
>Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
>
>To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
>Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
>
>Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
>OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html
>
>List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
>
>